Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Ukrainian President Insists His Travel To Munich Is Important Amid Russian Threat Of Invasion; Interview With Representative Mike Quigley (D-IL); Ex-Officer Sentenced To Two Years In Prison For Daunte Wright's Killing; Judge Rules Jan. 6 Lawsuits Against Trump Can Move Forward; National Archives Acknowledges Classified Documents Were Found In Boxes At Mar-a-Lago After Trump Left Office; Police: 47 Arrested Today in Trucker-Inspired Protests In Ottawa. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired February 19, 2022 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:32]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jim Acosta. And we begin with urgent efforts to head off a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Vice President Kamala Harris met with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky today in Munich, Germany amid a global security conference there. Now she vowed swift and severe consequences for Russia if it does invade Ukraine.

President Biden says he's now convinced that's going to happen, that Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to launch the invasion and it's now a matter of when, not if. But President Biden also says diplomacy is still possible up until the very last minute.

Now the Kremlin is categorically denying Russia is planning an attack but U.S. officials estimate that Russia has amassed up to 190,000 personnel in and around Ukraine, and there are worrying instances of increased shelling in eastern Ukraine. The CNN team on tour of the front lines with Ukraine's Interior minister in the eastern part of the country came under mortar fire today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go faster. Go, go, go.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now luckily no one was injured, but this is very real. That shows it. And with that mind, I want to bring in CNN's Christiane Amanpour who had a one-on-one interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

And Christiane, President Zelensky is facing a crisis right now as officials continue to warn of this potential Russian invasion. I was struck, this is not only an extraordinarily consequential interview but also a very candid one. What was his message?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Well, his message was as Vice President Kamala Harris said this is a decisive moment for Europe, for the United States, for the alliance, and obviously for Ukraine. And Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, said the same thing. He came here. He ultimately felt and sounded a little angry, a little agitated, but also thankful to have the support of the West.

He said, look, what are we waiting for? You keep telling us every day that there's going to be an invasion. At least why don't you put sanctions down now? Or put out a list of sanctions so Putin will know what he faces.

On these so-called false flag incident around the eastern Ukraine area, where Russian have occupied it since 2014, unrecognized by the way by the international community, there are instances of firing. Two Ukrainian soldiers have been killed. The Russians claim that some Ukrainian explosions have happened.

The Ukrainians say they will not be provoked and as far as we can tell so far these are low level incidents, and there's no reason to be provoked by these kinds of incidents. The Ukrainians say they will not be provoked.

Volodymyr Zelensky again talked about the NATO issue, which is the issue that Putin says that he's most concerned about. But mostly it is believed that if it's not NATO, it's EU. Putin will simply want to have his control of this area and he'll go for any excuse.

Now I asked President Zelensky about being here in Munich. Let's face it, the world is saying or at least the United States is saying that he's going to face an invasion any time soon, and he gets up and he leaves his country despite advice from the U.S. and he comes here. He did so, he told me, because he wanted to thank his partners and to reiterate the seriousness of this current message. But nonetheless, I asked him whether he was afraid.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Were you at all afraid of coming here?

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE (through translator): No. Why? With our friends here.

AMANPOUR: No, no, leaving your house unguarded.

ZELENSKY (through translator): Well, my response will be very brief. I'm sure that our country is in good hands. This is not just my hands. These are the hands of our soldiers and our citizens. I think my visit here is important. And I would like to say that I had breakfast in the morning in Ukraine and I will have my dinner in Ukraine as well. I never leave home for long.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: It's a pretty remarkable statement for a president who's under such enormous unprecedented pressure, and as soon as we finished the interview, he finished his speech here, he did get up and leave. So he's on his way back to Ukraine. If he hasn't arrived there already, he's on his way back there.

[16:06:07]

Interestingly, and I think this is important, the Chinese Foreign minister also addressed this conference via satellite, by translation, but he said that this must be resolved diplomatically and that he reiterated China's stance for the sovereignty and the integrity of any country, including Ukraine. So publicly, China is not siding with Putin on this issue.

Back to you, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And notable, and I think so far, underappreciated moment.

Christiane Amanpour, this was a great interview with about 15 different lines when I was reading the transcript that I raised my eyebrows and said, that's news. Thanks as always. Appreciate it.

All right, more now on Vice President Kamala Harris doubling down on the U.S. solidarity with Ukraine and issuing this warning to Moscow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If Russia further invades your country, as I mentioned earlier today, we will impose swift and severe economic sanctions. If Russia takes aggressive action against Ukraine, we are prepared to implement, and to do that work in a unified way with our allies around the world.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: And joining me now is Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley. He's on the House Intelligence Committee. He's also the co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus.

Congressman, it doesn't appear Russia is heeding any of the Western kind of universe's warnings at this point in time. Are there enough threats, the sanctions being the primary one, at this point in time to actually make a difference?

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): A couple of things. I respect President Zelensky, but the last thing I want to do is let President Putin know what those threats are. What those exact sanctions are. Do we want to give him forewarning so he can put that in his calculus to decide whether or not this is worth it? And do we really want to tie our hands and let others perhaps like China help circumvent this know exactly what they're going to deal with?

Now I'd rather President Putin be a little unsettled about unprecedented sanctions on every aspect of their economy and not just the oligarchs, but he himself. As to whether I think the sanctions will be enough, you know, watching this on the Intel Committee for seven years and President Putin pretty directly, my own assessment is he probably values Ukraine being back under Soviet sphere of influence if not direct control, more than he does a pipeline. So I think what you really threaten is some of the things that we

started to do. Troop posturing in Eastern Europe. The tanks sale to Poland. He wants the U.S. out of Europe. He wants NATO to dissolve and certainly stay out of the Eastern Europe. I think what you threaten with him is the opposite. That he would have an extraordinary NATO presence at his doorstep if he continues to act this way.

MATTINGLY: Now, President Biden said yesterday that almost definitely Russia has decided to invade. The secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, echoed that today. I guess, and we've heard this from Republicans. The Congress is united particularly in the leadership level in terms of this moment in time. But one of the things they differ on is application of sanctions and when. If the invasion is inevitable or is viewed as inevitable, why not pull the trigger on sanctions now?

QUIGLEY: Yes, I mean, I was a little bit of, are you provoking or are you appeasing? And I think you try to strike that balance recognizing that you're not acting alone. We have to act with our NATO allies. So it's a balancing act. I think you certainly prepare them. Frankly, I thought it was bad timing for the Senate not to come to an accord when I believe that they could and they should.

So I think we're going to get there. I'm feeling better about how our NATO allies feel about this and if an invasion takes place, I don't think there's any doubt that they'll act appropriately and with due haste.

MATTINGLY: One of the questions I've had, you know, President Biden has made clear there will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine. It's not a NATO ally. It is not -- Article 5 is not applicable here. But what does the day after look like from the congressional perspective if Russia invades? Obviously the sanctions package will be triggered, but what do lawmakers do in this moment in time? What's your role here?

QUIGLEY: Sure. I mean, I think part of this is communicating to the American people just what this means and why it matters. Besides the being the right thing to do to defend Ukraine, a sovereign democracy at Putin's doorstep. We've been fighting the Russians for seven years. They signed a Budapest memorandum. So it's the right thing to do. It's also the smart thing to do. An invasion impacts everyone in the United States.

[16:10:01]

Aside from a refugee crisis, a humanitarian crisis that would come with it, either response to the sanctions we give or the invasion, the war that would take place would dramatically impact the United States. Cut off of energy to Western Europe would mean worldwide markets and a reduction there and increase in prices and shortages.

The scarce resources that come out of both countries would further complicate our already difficult supply chain issues. So we are going to have to have skin in the game. It affects us, it's the right thing to do, and they need to be unified with how we go forward with sanctions, recognizing, as I believe the president had alluded to, helping other democracies does not come without a cost. There will be a cost, but it's important.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's a critical message. One thing I really wanted to ask you, you know, you're a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. When I was a Capitol Hill reporter, I would ask you about things that the Intel Committee had seen and you would say you couldn't talk about it, which is very true.

But the White House has been so willing to almost in real time release intelligence. Make very clear what they're seeing or at least a chunk of what they're seeing to a degree we've never seen before. It's clearly strategic, it's clearly calibrated. What do you make of the decision to take that posture over the course of the last couple of weeks?

QUIGLEY: You're right. It is unprecedented. It's a game changer for us on the committee. First of all, the president is right, and the intel has been outstanding since we started learning about this several months ago. And I think warning the world about things like false flag has real value. It makes it much more difficult for Putin to act in the manner in which I'm pretty sure he'd like to do. The issues of provocation as well.

So I think it helps educate the American people and our NATO allies about how this would go forward. It also sets the stage in a very real sense. The president is right. He doesn't allude to specific intel, but he referenced it in saying that the threat is there and that an invasion is imminent and I've seen, I'm assume, most of what he has and he is absolutely right.

But I guess as I would remind people even if the intel wasn't there and I understand prelude to previous conflicts that has been conflicted we can't chuck our common sense out the door. The fact of the matter is Putin has invaded Ukraine twice before, Moldova, Georgia. He has 198,000 troops flanking. He has military exercises taking place to the north and to the south. We're seeing missile exercises now. The evacuation of civilians in the east.

The full Kremlin playbook and full operation from propaganda to provocation. So this is dangerous. This is imminent. It matters to all of us and we need to be ready.

MATTINGLY: Yes. It doesn't take great intelligence to see 190,000 personnel built up at the border.

Congressman Mike Quigley, thanks so much as always, sir. Appreciate it.

QUIGLEY: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: All right. Coming up next, why this viral video of police breaking up a fight in a New Jersey mall is sparking widespread outrage.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [16:17:30]

MATTINGLY: A viral video showing police breaking up a fight between two teens at a New Jersey mall is sparking a significant amount of outrage. It's raising questions about whether the officers' response was racially motivated.

I want you to watch this video closely. You can see the officers separating the two teens, but notice how one, who is white, was pushed on to a couch and basically left alone and ignored by the officers, while the other teen, who is black, was tackled to the ground and handcuffed and both officers got involved. Even kneeling on his back and shoulder. The white teen eventually stands up. Officers don't seem to notice.

Now the black teen's mom told CNN she wants to know why her son was the only one treated this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EBONE HUSAIN, SON PINNED TO GROUND, HANDCUFFED BY POLICE AFTER FIGHT: I keep trying to wrap my mine around it. In no possible scenario does it make sense to me. If, I hate to say this, but if it wasn't for race, then what is it? What made them tackle my son? And at the end of it, what made them be so aggressive with my son and not the other kid? Why is the other kid sitting down looking at my son be humiliated and put into cuffs? It just doesn't make sense. It makes me angry.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now Bridgewater, New Jersey Police have requested an independent review of the officers' conduct in that video.

I want to bring in former D.C. police chief and former Philadelphia police commissioner Charles Ramsey and CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson.

And Chief, look, I'm one who is extremely cautious in terms of drawing conclusions on videos or initial reports of things, and even I watched this and was quite perplexed. Some have called for these officers to lose their jobs. Do you agree based on your experience and what you see here?

CHARLES RAMSEY, FORMER D.C. POLICE CHIEF: Well, I agree it was wrong. I don't know if firing is the proper action to take. Clearly, they've come upon a fight and they see two combatants. Now you separate the two, but what happens after that is where the problem comes in. The one youngster, the white kid, is put on a couch. The female officer leaves him unattended, and how many times have we seen fistfights turn into gun fights or knife fights?

You don't know if either of them are armed at that time. And so even tactically, that's wrong. But they made a quick judgment when they came there and that judgment was that the young black kid was the threat and the other one was not a threat. And that's just wrong. MATTINGLY: I just don't understand it. I want to turn to the Kim

Potter case, the ex-officer was sentenced to two years in prison for mistakenly drawing her gun instead of a taser during a traffic stop, fatally shooting Daunte Wright.

[16:20:07]

Joey, the judge gave a lighter sentence than prosecutors were seeking. What did you make of that?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Phil, good to be with you and Chief Ramsey. I made (INAUDIBLE) it was improper and inappropriate in my judgment. People could agree or disagree. I say that for the following reasons. Number one, Phil, I think when you look at sentences and our system, you have to think about uniformity. You have to think about consistency. You have to think about treating everyone equally and fairly.

And I don't think this furthers that narrative. We saw an officer in Minnesota 2017 who shot and killed, accidentally and very tragically, he was an African-American officer, a white woman. Didn't do it on purpose. Was really sorry he did it. He got 12 and a half years. How do you juxtapose this next to that and say it's right?

Number two, when you see the judge talking about no deterrence is not considered or deterrence has no value, we are disagreed. You want to deter not this officer, I don't think she'll reoffend, but any other officer, of course, and I just want to be clear. You have officers out there working hard every day and twice on Sunday. Not indicting the police force. But you want officers to be careful, and if you're a 26- year veteran, you ought to be careful in the event that you're carrying a firearm that you could make a mistake.

And, you know, the last point, Phil, and that's this. When you look and you evaluate these things and you talk and the judge speaks to compassion and speaks to these issues, and standing (INAUDIBLE) and quoting Obama, what about Daunte Wright's family and what about the compassion for him? So in my judgment, people can have a disagreement, that's fine. This is my point of view. I think it doesn't send the right message. And I just think it was wrong.

Finally, finally, finally, the mother asked on victim impact statement, Daunte Wright's mother, what is the value of my son's life worth in terms of time? I think we got the answer and it wasn't an answer certainly that I liked or appreciated.

MATTINGLY: Yes. An answer that left the family furious as well.

Now another big case, guys, we've covered, we just covered it last hour, closing arguments on Monday in the federal hate crimes trial of the three white men convicted of murdering Ahmaud Arbery. Now, Chief, one witness testified that Gregory McMichael drove her to a legal proceeding years ago and during the ride, he went on a racist rant that, quote, "scared her."

Critically he was driving her on assignment from the local district attorney's office, so he would have been on the clock when this happened. So it's more than just these on-camera incidents that make headlines. When people like this are part of the legal system and their colleagues either tolerate it or don't know about this, what's the fix there? You've been critical in trying to fix the system. What's the fix here?

RAMSEY: Well, I mean, listen, it's a problem, but it's not just in policing or law enforcement. It's throughout our society. I mean, racism does exist and it needs to be rooted out. I mean, you know, she was upset when she was in the car and he was ranting, you know. Did she say anything at that time? Did she turn him in so someone could take action? Probably not. And that's part of the problem.

There are many people who are aware that there are individuals in policing and elsewhere that have these kinds of attitudes and yet they don't do anything about it. And until we stand up and just say no, that's wrong, it's not right, this is not the place for you. Then it's going to continue. And we're going to have more examples of it.

MATTINGLY: No question. A lot of work to do. Not just in law enforcement or other sectors of society.

Charles Ramsey, Joey Jackson, thanks, guys. Really appreciate it.

JACKSON: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: All right, coming up next, we are learning more about this stunning helicopter crash video we saw just off the coast of Miami Beach. Now, incredibly, police are telling CNN that one of the three people in the aircraft was not injured. The very latest coming up next.

You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:28:16]

MATTINGLY: We're following breaking news into CNN. Take a look at this video. Dramatic video of a helicopter crashing into the ocean just feet away from people on the shore and in the water in Miami Beach, in Florida.

Now we've just learned there were three people on the helicopter. Two were taken to the hospital and remarkably police tell CNN the third person was not injured. We don't know the condition of the two people taken to the hospital at this moment. When we learned more, we will be sure to keep you updated. I cannot believe that video.

All right, a federal judge is making clear that civil lawsuits seeking to hold former President Trump accountable for his actions on January 6th can move forward. In an opinion, Federal Judge Amit Mehta also laid out how Trump could potentially be held accountable for inciting the Capitol riot, writing, quote, "The president's January 6th rally speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action."

Joining me now is Elie Honig, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and CNN legal analyst.

So, Elie, it was an interesting week for the former president on the legal side of things, but these comments specifically by a federal judge about Trump's civil liability for January 6th, what do they mean?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Phil, in the narrowest sense, this decision keeps Donald Trump in this lawsuit, which means the next step here is going to be discovery where the parties exchange information. That means Donald Trump will likely have to sit for a deposition and answer questions under oath in this lawsuit. It's also really interesting I think to note that the judge threw out the claims against other people. Against Donald Trump Jr., against Rudy Giuliani.

So the judge decided that what Donald Trump, the former president, did was different and worse than what those people did.

[16:30:00]

You just read the exact clip of how the judge said it's reasonable to look at these facts and conclude Donald Trump issued a collective call to action.

That's a really important ruling. It's something the committee and Justice Department ought to take note of and, frankly, the Justice Department ought to take not of.

MATTINGLY: Yes, the former president needs to take note of it.

As well as the National Archives confirming that classified records were included in 15 boxes that Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after he left office.

And the Archive says it has discussed this with the Department of Justice.

Is this a possible crime? And I know, if it is, it's a complicated case to try and pursue? What happens next?

HONIG: Yes, Phil, I think it could be a federal crime. It is against the law federally to destroy or remove classified documents, if it done intentionally, not by accident, and if it's done knowing that the documents are classified.

Typically, they're marked on their face as "top secret" or "secret" or "confidential." The reporting is these documents did have those markings.

So anyone who removed those documents and could read, could see those classifications, has committed a federal crime.

And let's remember, this is really serious, dangerous stuff. The reason we have classifications is because national security is an issue. So DOJ needs to investigate this, potentially criminally.

And our intelligence apparatus needs to figure out whether any of these documents got out in a way that could be threatening to our national security.

MATTINGLY: So in box number three, a judge in New York ruled that the former president, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr all must sit for depositions in a civil investigation into the business practices by the state's attorney general.

How does this play out from here?

HONIG: Well, it's a big win for the attorney general for now and a big loss for the Trumps.

Here's what's going to happen. The Trumps will appeal up the line in the New York state courts. I think it's likely they'll lose those appeals.

Then Donald Trump and Ivanka and Don Jr will have to sit for depositions under oath.

Will they take the Fifth Amendment? They have a constitutional right to do that. Given that they're under criminal investigation, they should do that. But it looks terrible. Frankly, it's humiliation for a former president to have to take the Fifth.

The other thing is, taking the Fifth cannot be used against someone if they're ever criminally prosecuted.

But it can be used against someone in a civil prosecution, what we can an adverse inference, meaning, the jury can infer the worst from the fact a person took the Fifth in a civil case.

MATTINGLY: A deposition is not a cable news interview. That's the truth.

Before you go, I want to highlight and extraordinary person.

This week, former Israeli Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Bach died at the age of 94.

Many of you have probably heard of him. Bach is of three prosecutors who, in 1961, tried Adolf Eichmann, widely known as the architect of the Holocaust.

Elie, you interviewed Bach for an incredible documentary piece on the 60th anniversary of Eichmann's trial.

I want to play a portion. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GABRIEL BACH, FORMER ISRAELI SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WHO PROSECUTOR ADOLF EICHMANN: The first moment of the trial, when the person, one of the officials said -- (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

And then door opened and Adolf Eichmann came in. He then came into the courtroom and then he stood to attention and then the judges also stood to attention. That was a feeling which was felt all over the country, the fact that

we, in the state of Israel, Jewish state, that we can punish this man who -- we are representative of the Jewish people.

And if we can show that the men who murdered millions of people from our society, that was very, very justifiable and very just, that we shall do that and not leave it to a court of another country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Elie, Bach was an incredible man with an remarkable legacy that was stunningly much bigger than just the Eichmann trial. Although that, obviously, was a keystone.

What comes to mind when you think of his life?

HONIG: Phil, first of all, thank you for playing that clip.

It is impossible for a person to live a more meaningful consequential life than Gabriel Bach.

When he was a child and teenager, his family was chased across Europe by the Nazis. And a decade and a half later, there he was prosecuting one of the most monstrous of the Nazi war criminals, Adolf Eichmann, for the murders of Jews and other people.

And to me, Phil, I can tell you, Judice Bach, he later became a justice on the Israeli Supreme Court.

Justice Bach is an inspiration and a role model to me. I know his legacy of standing up against racial and religious hatred and standing for justice, I know that his legacy will live on in history.

MATTINGLY: No question about it. May his memory be a blessing.

Elie Honig, great to talk to you as always, my friend. Thank you so much.

HONIG: Thanks, Phil.

[16:34:58]

MATTINGLY: All right, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: The all-new CNN original series, "LBJ, TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY," provides a captivating look at how President Johnson managed to usher in one of the most sweeping domestic policy agendas in history.

At the start of his first term, many suggested President Joe Biden might have the same opportunity to repeat LBJ's success in passing such an ambitious domestic agenda.

[16:40:05] CNN's Laura Jarrett has a look at how that's playing out so far.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR, "EARLY START" (voice-over): Two presidents, skilled in negotiations of the Senate, promising bold action.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To every American watching, help is here, and we will not stop working for you.

JARRETT: With a decisive win in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson swung for the fences with his plan for a Great Society. It's a history President Biden knows well, and a playbook he hoped to follow.

BIDEN: This bill puts working people in this nation first.

JARRETT: But legislative wins have been harder to come by.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, there was a lot of talk of transformative legislation, of historic legislation. There was talk of FDR. There was talk of LBJ.

And it was a trap for him because, given the current set of circumstances, there's a limit to what he can get done.

JARRETT: Unlike Biden, President Johnson had basic math working in his favor.

JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Johnson has 295 Democrats in the House, 68 Democrats in the Senate. So, he had large majorities. President Biden has never had that.

(APPLAUSE)

JARRETT: And, unlike now --

AXELROD: LBJ also had people he could work with on the Republican side to compensate for the Democratic votes that he was losing from the south.

JARRETT: It's a harsh reality that has led to disappointment for Democrats on everything from Biden's sweeping plan to remake America's social safety net, to even modest attempts at police reform.

AXELROD: There's so much about having a 50/50 Senate and a closely divided House that makes it excruciating for a president because you have no margin for error.

JARRETT: Those fault lines in Congress exposed most recently as President Biden urged lawmakers to shore up voting rights. Some of the very protections signed into law by President Johnson.

BIDEN: I've been having these quiet conversations with members of Congress for the last two months. I'm tired of being quiet!

(CHEERING) JARRETT: But Biden didn't have the votes for a new bill on voting.

Plus, he didn't have this.

ZELIZER: When "Bloody Sunday" happens and Americans turn on the TV and see peaceful protesters, like John Lewis, getting beaten, it changes the temperature nationally.

JARRETT: While President Johnson's legacy may ultimately have been marred by the war in Vietnam, President Biden's first year in office has been dominated by the battle against Covid-19 and other woes.

The question now is whether he can turn things around in time for the midterms in November --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President.

JARRETT: -- and beyond.

AXELROD: The hope that he has is that the virus will recede, inflation will be tamed.

And come summer, which is when people will really formulate their views, that people's attitudes will change. The problem that he has is that so much of that is out of his hands.

JARRETT: Laura Jarrett, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: It's a great piece from Laura.

Be sure to tune in to the all-new CNN original series, "LBJ, TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY." It premiers with back-to-back episodes tomorrow at 9:00 p.m., only on CNN.

And still to come, Ottawa police are attempting to clear streets that have been blocked for weeks in the Canadian capital.

You're looking at live pictures right now.

Police say some of the protesters they have arrested were wearing body armor and have smoke grenades and fireworks. A live report from Canada coming up next.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:01]

MATTINGLY: Chaotic scenes in Ottawa as demonstrators clash with police as law enforcement attempt to clear streets that have been blocked for weeks in the capital.

Officers say things got violent today and they were forced to use a chemical irritant on some of the protesters.

These demonstrations have been going on for weeks with trucks and crowds filling Ottawa's downtown area. Police have arrested 170 people over the past two days.

CNN's Paula Newton has been covering this every step of the way and has been on the scene in Ottawa.

Paula, have things calmed down at all, given the escalation over the last few days?

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It depends on your notion of calm.

Yes, it does seem, while the standoff continues between police and protesters, that things have calmed down from this morning. Some of the video you were just looking at there.

At issue here is how to disperse the protestors that remain. And, Phil, I've got to tell you, this entire operation has been complicated from the beginning.

Complicated still, because even in the last hours, police have told us that, look, protestors continue to bring their children to this protest.

And that is complicated by the fact that, again, this started as a trucker's protest. So many of those vehicles were still there in front of parliament.

Phil, I know you'll appreciate this. Imagine if those semis were parked in front of Capitol Hill.

At the same time, Phil, what's going on now is absolutely historic. You have three levels in terms of emergency declarations, local, provincial, federal.

That federal act being debated in parliament just a mere, few hundred feet from where the protest was going on outside. Now, parliament went into some type of lockdown.

The area immediately in front of parliament has been cleared. The protesters are now streaming into some of those residential streets.

You know, there does seem to be, as I said, a stalemate.

Police -- we just had an update from the police chief who says, look, we are determined this occupation is done.

To people who say that some of these police tactics were rough, he's saying we have told you for three weeks to leave right now because of that Emergency Act is in place."

[16:50:05]

Phil, it basically means that even walking on those streets, you are breaking the law. For that reason, police say they will continue to move as they did,

using so many levels of police enforcement and different tactics, everything from a mounted unit to riot police.

There's going to be quite a hangover from this, Phil. This has been a protest, I'll remind you, beginning about COVID -19 measures. It has turned into so much more.

And again, the authorities saying that Emergency Act means the same in other places, because they don't want other protests to pop up in other places of the country like they did at those border crossings -- Phil?

MATTINGLY: You're looking at live pictures right now.

Paula, you have been my guidepost on this every step of the way, helping me understand everything. I appreciate you sharing your reporting, all your work. I don't think you've been able to rest at all.

So thanks so much. I appreciate it.

All right. So far, these protests have not made their way south to the United States.

But in a new piece in "The Atlantic," David Frum writes quote: "This crisis may be building into something truly dangerous. If the crackdown goes bad in Canada, the negative consequences may not be confined to the country."

David Frum joins me now.

David, you write these protests are a rogue movement and pointed to antiestablishment displayed at these protests.

Why is that significant on whether these will actually spread to the United States?

DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC": I called it a rogue movement because, although it's often described as a trucker protest, it's really a truck protest.

Most Canadian truckers, virtually all of them, are vaccinated. Few of the people at the protest drive a truck for a living.

The protests have been condemned by both the Canadian Trucking Association and Teamster's Union.

They represent an outpouring of certain kinds of grievances, some related to COVID, some not. But they are apart from a lot of the normal politics of Canada.

The good news is that the worst of the protest seems to be over. The bridges are opened. And the police have been able to move far to restore order -- despite the noise we've hearing -- that has been incredibly restrained. There have been no injuries to law enforcement personnel and very,

very few, if any to the protestors.

MATTINGLY: You point out in the piece the differences between Canadian and American politically motivated protests.

How would these protests look in your view in terms of looking different if they came south to the United States?

FRUM: Well, it has, to the credit of everyone involved, the protests, even the protesters, as radical as they are, have been much less violent than any of their American counterparts.

You don't see things like people displaying weapon as you saw in Michigan in 2020.

When arms were detected at one border crossing in Alberta, it was a huge shock to the Canadian system. It is a peaceable society. It's a largely unarmed society. Certainly not armed with firearms.

Canadian governments have a lot of repertory with law. But while the Emergency Act sounds ominous, in fact, it is an incredibly measured piece of legislation with lots of in-built restraints.

For example, it lapses automatically in 30 days. A majority of parliament can stop it at any time. And every act done under the Emergency Act is reviewed by a committee of parliament and is reviewable in the courts as well.

MATTINGLY: I understand, particularly when some of the border crossings were blocked, the concern or paying very close attention to this from an economic perspective. It has very real repercussions.

But it has also been the case of right-wing TV hosts have been very invested in these protests, encouraging similar protests in the U.S.

For example, take a listen to this from FOX's Sean Hannity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX HOST, "HANNITY": You do have a lot of support from your friends in America. That I can tell you. And you can see these movements now. We have a movement in America that's starting very soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: I guess the question is, you know, this has become more about vaccine mandates. Why the interest? Why the support? Why the effort to bring it here?

FRUM: Well, we're -- look, what is happening in the United States is most of the restrictions are vanishing.

New York has ended its mask mandate. The District of Columbia, where I'm at now, will end the mask mandate on the 1st of March. Masks are disappearing from schools.

If you want COVID as a culture-war issue, you're losing it. It's being taken away from you. There's not a lot to argue about.

So if you're trying to keep up that energy and rage and anger to supply the TV audience with its dose of anger dopamine, you have to look farther and farther afield.

You have to import your anger. And so Canada has filled this role.

The thing that's really strange -- and I say this as someone born in Canada, lived a lot of his life in Canada and has a house in Canada -- Canada's had a problem with these kinds of blockades, pipelines and rail, of highways often done by indigenous and left-wing groups.

And that's been a problem for Canada. And the truck protests are borrowing techniques for other movements, and other movements that I assume FOX would be unsympathetic to.

[16:55:04]

And yet, when it's a different kind of cause, close the Ambassador Bridge, interrupt commerce, seize the city, the capitol of the country, go ahead, be our guest.

MATTINGLY: Yes, coopting of this has been interesting to say the least.

David Frum, really interesting piece in "The Atlantic." Thanks so much for your time.

FRUM: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: All right, coming up next, a rush to avoid war as officials warn Russian President Vladimir Putin of swift sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine. The very latest on that crisis.

You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)